Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?

[Ned]

Immanuel, it seems we are speaking different languages. Everything you say is pure fantasy, floating in air, without an anchor in reality.

I refer you back to my earlier post in which I spelled out the rules of critical thinking and of meaningful definitions.

You are violating practically all those rules, so we don't have a framework for further discussion.

Let's wait and see who else has interesting things to contribute to this thread.

I do thank you for the genuine effort you made to answer my questions -- it is extremely valuable to me for the book I am working on.

[Ned]

PS.

To save you the trouble of finding the post, here it is again:

The fundamental rules of critical thinking:

1. Exactly what is it that we know?
2. Exactly how do we know it?
3. What are the sources, the reliability and the limits of our knowledge?

In addition, for me, the words we are using have to be defined by the following rules:

The definition has to:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

[Immanuel Can]

The fundamental rules of critical thinking:

1. Exactly what is it that we know?
2. Exactly how do we know it?
3. What are the sources, the reliability and the limits of our knowledge?

These don't look like "rules". They look like questions of epistemology. Rules are ordinarily framed as commands. There are no instructions here as to what is and is not to be discussed in the pursuit of these questions.

The definition has to:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

I must protest: I have violated none of these precepts.

I think perhaps we are differently understanding the epistemology of verification, circularity, knowledge, definition and contradiction, just as you seem to misunderstand the word "rule." Not knowing your special, non-standard interpretation of these terms, I cannot easily be sure why you think otherwise. I can only say -- from the perspective of standard definitions -- it's not true.

I have defined what you ask, sought to verify as much as is reasonably possible, have said nothing circular, don't know what you mean by delimiting "existing human knowledge" (except perhaps your own knowledge) since others share the knowledge I have, have not refused to define and have said nothing contradictory.

I'm mystified. I would suppose that if you were to want to write a good book on the subject of God you would wish to talk to true believers of the position, rather than to glean information from other sources -- like, say, mere detractors or hangers-on, would you not? And I would think you would want to take on the strongest arguments they could muster, would you not?

On the other hand, if what I say is disconcerting you from some tidy thesis from which you began your book, I can understand why you would wish to ignore the data of what Christians really believe and say. For then it wouldn't help your cause at all to have to deal with objections you were at pains to keep from destroying your thesis.

I do not know which outcome you really are seeking. But conversation is a privilege not a right, it's true: so I am obliged to accept your withdrawal from the exchange.

Regrettable.

[thedoc]

I also am not ready to accept that God designing nature differently would have been better from anyone's point of view.

I would suggest that the lion would prefer it's existing point of view.

No doubt, as things stand today. However, as I was told by a Jehova's witness that in the garden of Eden the lion was also a vegetarian.

"29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so."

So, it says in the bible that all creatures were vegetarians at the beginning.

It would be interesting to learn how the lion's digestive system changed at the expulsion!!!

I suppose that is one interpretation, but it could also be read that the herbs and green green things were the ultimate source of food for everything, but left out the detail about intermediate steps in the process. Herbivores ate the green things and carnivores ate the herbivores, thereby the green plants fed everything. The Lions digestive system didn't need to change. But as has been stated before the Bible is mostly Myth and should not be read in detail, those can always be proven wrong, but it should be read so as to find the meaning in the story.

[thedoc]

On a similar theme to my previous post, it is also stated in the Bible that God created man from the dust of the earth, and a literal reading would suggest that God took a pile of dirt and made it into a human being. However a more realistic interpretation would be to understand that humans are sustained by eating food, and all food is ultimately derived from the Earth. Plants grow in the dirt, and for Ned that is everything. For me that is only part of my diet, other food comes from animals that have eaten those green plants and are then processed into food that I eat. So in all cases, people are sustained by the dust of the earth, the Bible just doesn't go into detail on the intermediate steps.

[Ned]

On the lighter side:

The priest thundered from the pulpit:
“everyone in this parish is going to die”
but the man in the back only sniggered:
"Father, you don't scare me with this,
because, you see, I’m from another parish!"

[Ned]

I suppose that is one interpretation.

That's a beautiful comment on the reliability of the "source of knowledge" religious people claim to base their faith on.

It can mean anything you want it to mean.

Referring to the bible as a proof grossly violates the third rule of critical thinking I quoted before.

[Ned]

Here is another list of questions that critical thinkers should ask:

It is all about asking the right questions and insisting on answers.

1. how do you define it?
2. is your definition based on reliable observation and logic?
3. how do you know?
4. what have you observed?
5. how reliable are your sources?
6. are there contradictions between these concepts?
7. between a concept and your observations?
8. what is the cause-and-effect chain?
9. what happened before that?
10. what happened after?
11. is that the simplest explanation (Ockham's Razor)?
12. What probability do you assign to it?
13. What other reasonable explanation can you imagine?
14. Is there a limit to human understanding?
15. Are we mentally equipped to observe and understand ALL of reality?
16. How small are we compared to infinite space and infinite time?
17. How many times have we been lied to before by authorities in politics and in religion?

[thedoc]

I suppose that is one interpretation.

That's a beautiful comment on the reliability of the "source of knowledge" religious people claim to base their faith on.
It can mean anything you want it to mean.
Referring to the bible as a proof grossly violates the third rule of critical thinking I quoted before.

I think the meaning would at least need to fit within the limits of what is written.

I see that in one post you quote a reference to the Bible as the source of your information, and a few posts later you say that quoting the Bible violates one of your rules of critical thinking. And misrepresenting what I said should also be a violation of some rule, because I did not claim that the Bible was proof of anything, I was just following your lead and interpreting what was written. It appears that in referencing the bible, you are flip floping depending on whether the quote and interpretation supports your position or not.

BTW, do you have a title for your book yet?

[Ned]

doc, you misunderstand it.

I knew you were following my lead and I did not imply that you thought that the bible was a proof of anything.

I was jesting when I quoted the bible, sort of tongue-in-cheek fashion. I don't consider the bible to be anything other than a collection of myths composed by a large number of people over the years, translated innumerable times, often changed and adapted to suit specific purposes.

Actually I rather enjoyed your interpretation of the bible quote I referenced earlier (in good humour) -- I thought that your interpretation was creative, imaginative and funny!

The book is about the source and origin of religious faith (any religion) in the 21st century. Specifically I am exploring the mystery of how otherwise intelligent and educated people are able to maintain their faith in view of advances in science during the last century. I have not decided on a title yet, even though I have several ideas.

[thedoc]

doc, you misunderstand it.

I knew you were following my lead and I did not imply that you thought that the bible was a proof of anything.

I was jesting when I quoted the bible, sort of tongue-in-cheek fashion. I don't consider the bible to be anything other than a collection of myths composed by a large number of people over the years, translated innumerable times, often changed and adapted to suit specific purposes.

Actually I rather enjoyed your interpretation of the bible quote I referenced earlier (in good humour) -- I thought that your interpretation was creative, imaginative and funny!

The book is about the source and origin of religious faith (any religion) in the 21st century. Specifically I am exploring the mystery of how otherwise intelligent and educated people are able to maintain their faith in view of advances in science during the last century. I have not decided on a title yet, even though I have several ideas.

Thankyou for your positive comment on my interpretation.

Let me address the last bit of your post. I know there are some who claim that religious people will point to the unexplained and say that was God's doing, and then refer to this as the "God of the gaps" as a criticism of believing in God. I do not follow that idea at all and will see the advances of science as discovering how God accomplished different aspects of the universe. I do not see new knowledge as pushing God out of the way, I see it as discovering how God did it. In another post I expressed the idea that proof does not destroy faith or belief, except in the most narrow definition of those terms. I can still believe something and have faith that it is true, even if it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Ned]

doc, the problem I have with any discussion in which the word 'god' is used, is that it is an undefined word. Which of the hundreds of gods that were invented in human history are we talking about? Is the word defined satisfying all the requirements of a meaningful definition, as I listed them earlier?

Let me quote from the "Science and Religion" chapter of my recently published book: "Humane Physics"

We have seen how science attempts to acquire knowledge. It is a long established method that has produced tangible results: our lives depend on it every day. When we talk about religion, first we have to ask: which religion? There have been hundreds in human history and countless people believed in each of them, convinced that their religion was the only true one and all the others were deluded. Just Google “World Religions” for a sample of dozens still practiced today by millions to billions.

I used to participate in internet forums for the discussion of scientific and philosophical ideas. On one of these forums I posted the following question: “Would you have imagined a god if you had never heard of the concept?”

"Suppose, for argument's sake, that you grew up in a world where nobody ever talked about gods or supernatural of any kind. Suppose you had a totally secular education: you learned about nature, physics, scientific facts, technology, productive skills, social organization, project management, etc. No priests, no churches, no bibles, no superstition, no Santa Clauses, no tooth fairies - nothing but observable reality. Would you have ever thought of anything outside this? What, if anything, would have made you think that there might be something outside of your experience?"

The point I was trying to make is that ALL of our ‘knowledge’ concerning religious assertions were handed down to us by our cultures. None of us discovered it from personal experience. This question made many forum members think hard, asking themselves the same question: “What do I know from first-hand experience and what have I accepted from others, without really examining how they acquired that ‘knowledge’?”

You might be tempted to say that the same is true for science: after all, we learn it from textbooks written by others. However, there is a difference. We can find out how the authors made their discoveries, based on what experiments, and how they reached their conclusions. Interested amateurs can reproduce the simpler experiments themselves, at least in the domain of Classical Physics. You need not take anything on faith.

Obviously, there are historical reasons why religions were invented in the first place, thousands of years ago. Otherwise they would not exist today. However, religions were established before we had proper science as an alternative and superior way to explain the universe.

The reason science has not replaced religion in so many minds is that people often lie, are often deluded and, the saddest fact of all, they often use psychological manipulation to achieve their aims: wealth or power over other people. Religions have been used for both over the millennia. Many bloody wars were fought using religion as an excuse.

In view of this, how much should we trust religious assertions, handed down to us over history? Wouldn’t it be safer to rely on our own observations and our own minds? Scientific thinking offers exactly that.

I was once asked whether I ‘believed in’ electrons. My answer was: I don’t need to believe in electrons, because I have personally conducted experiments that proved to me that material particles with a definite mass, charge and spin exist, even if I can’t see them. I don’t believe – I know.

The other argument I often hear is based on lack of imagination. It goes like this: “How can you imagine that a world as complex and as perfectly interacting as ours, has evolved by chance? There had to be a creator”.

And, of course, this reply begs the question. If the world was created by a creator, then the creator had to be at least as complex as its creation. Then, using the same argument, the creator had to have a creator, so who created the creator?

The usual answer is: the creator has always existed, it was not created. Then, the question is: if we can assume that something complex and powerful always existed, then why can’t we just assume that the universe has always existed, without a creator? Whichever way we look at religion, we either run into contradictions or find ourselves inventing arbitrary and totally unnecessary concepts.

Science saves you from all these problems: it is simple, logical, available to everyone who wants to find out. You don’t have to take it on faith.

Bottom line: am I an atheist? If the word ‘atheist’ means that I am absolutely certain, beyond even a shadow of a doubt that there is no such thing as a ‘god’, then I am not an atheist. No self-respecting scientist can be 100% certain of anything in the universe. Only probabilities exist in science and I admit, for lack of evidence to the contrary, that I assign an extremely low probability to the idea of a creator.

However, nothing is proven one way or another. Yes, the universe could have been created by a god or any number of gods. Life and evolution could have been started on Earth by an alien culture of superhuman power and we would not know anything about it.

However, all the established religions with which I am familiar are so obviously man-made that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could take any of them seriously. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu said: “If triangles had a god, he would have three sides”.

[thedoc]

I would suggest you consider this thread title, or some variation of it for the book.

One thing I have discovered about forums is that it is extremely difficult to know when someone is posting in jest and when they are serious. Unless that person says so directly. There are so many signals that are lost on the printed page on a screen.

[Ned]

So, doc, what is your definition of the word 'god' that you are using? If we can't define the words in our sentence, then we don't know what we are talking about, so I assume that you have a definition that satisfies you.

Does this definition satisfy the criteria I listed earlier?

Repeated here:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

Or, perhaps you disagree with any, or all, of these requirements?

I know that you are an intelligent and thoughtful person (obvious from your posts), so I am curious about your answer.

[thedoc]

So, doc, what is your definition of the word 'god' that you are using? If we can't define the words in our sentence, then we don't know what we are talking about, so I assume that you have a definition that satisfies you.

Does this definition satisfy the criteria I listed earlier?

Repeated here:

1./ be based on observed and verified phenomena
2./ it can not be circular (containing references to itself)
3./ it has to be placed in the context of existing human knowledge
4./ it can not use undefined words/concepts
5./ it cannot contain contradictions

Or, perhaps you disagree with any, or all, of these requirements?

I know that you are an intelligent and thoughtful person (obvious from your posts), so I am curious about your answer.

Actually the longer it goes the more I realize that any definition I come up with is too limiting. Just about the only things I attribute to God is that God created the universe, and that God is interested in human welfare. Omnipotent and Omnipresent are interesting and I would expect that they apply, but I don't accept the arguments using these concepts to disprove God, these ideas don't apply to God the same way humans define them. I really don't think my concept of God would fit any of the 5 criteria you have listed except the last, but I am not sure about the last, because I don't expect God to fit into human expectations or limits, and not fitting might be contradictory. Someone once complained that my definition of God was so broad that it could include invisible pink unicorns, and I would reply that I don't know that they don't exist. I have actually given up on trying to define very much about God and heaven because I always fall short in some way. I'm sorry if that is disappointing for you but I have come to accept that there are some things that are beyond human comprehension, though I don't say that we should stop trying, just that we should recognize when we fall short. One thing I do not accept is that we have intelligence and are not supposed to use it.